13 ms·
Really, 'classless'? The achievement is landing a space-capable booster vertically, after an actual mission above 100km, which can then be reused. And, Blue Ori
by grkvlt 11y ago
Really, 'classless'? The achievement is landing a space-capable booster vertically, after an actual mission above 100km, which can then be reused. And, Blue Origin managed that first, no two ways about it. I think it's probably pretty classless to imply that what Blue Origin managed to do was 'trivial'. Just because SpaceX is the current hacker's favourite, doesn't mean you have to downplay everyone else. I think Musk's tweet about the difference between 'space' and 'orbit' was actually pretty pointless hair-splitting. Now, you can get technical and say that the achievement is landing a booster that is part of an orbital launch system but really, what the rest of the system does has no real part to play in the landing of the rocket stage, and I think everyone else understands that.
- jacquesm 11y agoI think you underestimate the degree of difficulty between these two achievements. They are both very impressive but what SpaceX just did is many times more difficult than what Blue Origin did.
- grkvlt 11y agoOK, explain how the landing of the SpaceX first stage was many times more difficult? They used different mechanisms, yes (suicide burn vs. hover-capable) and the purpose of the overall system was different, but they are both VTOL rockets. Blue Origin was first, and Bezos can quite rightly welcome SpaceX to 'the club' as the second company to achieve this, without being accused of being classless, surely?
- jacquesm 11y agoBecause the Falcon 9 traveled at several thousand miles per hour horizontally when it did its flip and then the first retro burn. By contrast, the Blue Origin rocket went straight up, and straight back down. It never moved away from the launchpad in any appreciable amount and it never had to change orientation. From a space applications perspective it is not much more useful than a blimp. Today, history was made. Blue Origin: not so much. Nice but nowhere near in the same league (or the same club, to stick with Bezos).
- gozo 11y agoHistory is being made wheter you like it or not.
- stcredzero 11y agoBy contrast, the Blue Origin rocket went straight up, and straight back down...From a space applications perspective it is not much more useful than a blimp. Actually, the "pop-up" 1st stage trajectory is interesting from a space applications perspective. You can think of it this way: a SSTO spaceplane is just beyond the cusp of possible for technology made out of normal matter and fueled by chemical rockets. But what if you could somehow cheat and launch an SSTO at very high altitude? Then it's just below the cusp of possible. So you wind up with a completely reusable TSTO craft. So how is that more interesting than a high altitude blimp? You get the craft back faster, directly to the facility. Recovery is more straightforward. The equipment and technology is the same sort of equipment and technology as in the orbiter craft. Also, if you're able to get up to a "mere" 600 mph or so downrange velocity, due to the mathematics of the rocket equation, you're still saving a sizable chunk of vehicle weight in fuel.
- jacquesm 11y agoEven for that application Falcon would be a lot more usable due to the increased payload compared to BO's offering.
- stcredzero 11y agoTrue. But I'm not defending BO's craft. I'm just pointing out that the "pop up" first stage trajectory is indeed interesting. You wind up with a godawful huge 1st stage and a rather tiny orbiter, but lots of things are simplified, especially with 1st stage logistics.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoIf we downplay the difference between the landing modes and vehicle's missions, then SpaceX has beaten Blue Origin anyway - they had Grasshoppers doing VTOL years ago. After all, what's the difference between 700m and 100km, especially if in the latter case you're falling at terminal velocity for most of the way? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grasshopper_%28rocket%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grasshopper_%28rocket%29
- mikeash 11y agoHow is BO's achievement different from what SpaceX did with their Grasshopper test vehicle years ago? If you want to say it's about VTOL rockets, SpaceX was first by a long way. If you want to say it's about reusing an orbital launcher, BO is nowhere close. You have to torture the categories into uselessness to say BO did anything first.
- sillysaurus3 11y agoWhy is this downvoted? There is some serious tribalism going on in this thread. You all need to chill out and start thinking again. Who cares whether BO or SpaceX was first, or whether China or America was first? We should be happy that humanity is closer to Mars.
- CamperBob2 11y agoIt probably wouldn't have come up if Bezos hadn't thumped his chest in Musk's direction, or if Musk hadn't taken the bait. Competitive people are competitive. Film (and Twitter fight) at 11...
- justinsingh 11y agoI for one think that giving credit where credit is due is an important thing.
- sillysaurus3 11y agoGetting off this rock is probably the only thing that matters. Credit is irrelevant when Earth is no longer habitable and we never left.
- CamperBob2 11y agoThat, and I want to see an Epic Rap Battle of History between Musk and Bezos some day. It will take a lot of competition and a lot of progress before they have enough dirt to throw at each other.
- sillysaurus3 11y agoHahaha... Thanks, that cheered me up. Someone should totally do rap battles while pretending to be some famous figure. The possibilities are endless. Faux Bill Gates vs Faux Steve Jobs.
- pnt12 11y ago
- sixQuarks 11y agoDidn't SpaceX go around the entire earth before landing? I don't think Bezos'did
- ctdonath 11y agoCould someone clarify the stage one path? Where did it launch, and where did it land, and where did it go horizontally in the meantime?
- jacquesm 11y agoIt flew 100's of kms away from the launch site, flipped around, flew back and landed a mile or so from the launchpad. http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/by-making-a-historic-landing-spacex-launches-new-age-of-spaceflight/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/by-making-a-historic-...
- vermontdevil 11y agoActually 9KM from the launchpad I believe.
- robotresearcher 11y agoNo.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- zardo 11y agoNo, but it lifted a second stage that continued on to orbit, delivering 11 satellites. https://i.imgur.com/D9BdO86.png https://i.imgur.com/D9BdO86.png http://www.flightclub.io/results.php?id=eb627cc3-ffab-43a3-9a63-0009a366acb2&code=OG22 http://www.flightclub.io/results.php?id=eb627cc3-ffab-43a3-9...
- demallien 11y agoBecause Falcon9 is a big launcher taking a serious payload into orbit. This means that the first stage has to have very large engines - so large that they can't be throttled down to hover, they have to kill velocity at the point of touchdown. It's the difference between slowing your car down gently to stop at a red light, and having your car going at max speed and slamming on the brakes as hard as you can at exactly the right moment so that you will eventually stop at the lights. One is easy to do, the other will most likely get you killed.
- JshWright 11y agoNew Shepard is able to make several compromises that make landing _much_ easier. New Shepard doesn't have to get anywhere close to orbital velocity, so it can use a far less powerful engine. That means it can throttle down far enough to hover. That is a _huge_ advantage over Falcon 9, which must time the landing burn perfectly to hit 0 velocity at the exact moment it touches the ground. They're in the same club like a general aviation pilot landing his Piper Cub on a giant runway and a navy pilot landing his F-14 on a carrier are "in the same club". While it's technically true, pointing it out would be pretty tacky...
- grkvlt 11y agoBut the F9 first stage doesn't get to orbital velocity, either, remember. The achievements are comparable, despite the fact it makes SpaceX come second. Blue Origin was first with a VTOL rocket stage, as part of a space system.
- JshWright 11y ago> But the F9 first stage doesn't get to orbital velocity, either, remember. It gets a whole lot closer (and is _much_ larger). I really can't emphasize enough how much of a difference the ability to hover makes for New Shepard. SpaceX has been doing "New Shepard" type flights for a long time now (they didn't bother going that high, but 'high' isn't really that interesting, it's 'fast' that matters). However, Grasshopper (like New Shepard) was able to throttle down to a TWR less than 1. That makes landing so much easier (the rocket can 'stop' and get settled before it proceeds to land).
- darkmighty 11y agoTo give people an idea, this is the difference of scale: http://i.imgur.com/RVOKED2.jpg http://i.imgur.com/RVOKED2.jpg Blue Origin's achievement is nice; just as older prototypes that achieved suborbital landing (Grasshopper, DC-X), but it's unclear yet what it meant for the industry (hope they keep going though, they're a good track). SpaceX's landing is a landmark for space travel, rapid reusability is now much closer. I'm much more confident now this will change the cost structure of the whole industry, seeing how launch is a dominant factor.
- CamperBob2 11y agoWhat, exactly, did Blue Origin do that the X-15 didn't do 50 years ago? Other than the terrestrial launch, that's about all I can think of.
- grkvlt 11y agoThat's pretty much it. As I understand it, the difficult bit was landing your rocket safely after launching it 100km up.
- JshWright 11y agoNot really... terminal velocity is terminal velocity. There is a limit to how fast you can fall through the atmosphere, regardless of how far up you start falling from.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- cornholio 11y ago"what the rest of the system does has no real part to play in the landing of the rocket stage" That assertion is ridiculous. The rocket is optimized to do one thing, push it's payload into orbit, this is a very strict restriction, especially on a two stage rocket. On the other hand, the designer of a suborbital vehicle has ample design space to play. It's like comparing your practice free throw, in your back yard, with a slam-dunk in the NBA.
- resu_nimda 11y agoThe achievement is landing a space-capable booster vertically, after an actual mission above 100km, which can then be reused. Who said that was the achievement? What is important about that achievement? The important achievement is dramatically reducing the cost of sending things into space (such that they will stay there). SpaceX's rockets achieve this, Blue Origin's don't even attempt to be in that league. Using your Everest analogy, Blue Origin was the first to climb some lesser peak nobody cared that much about (still, nice job), then SpaceX climbed Everest, and Bezos said "welcome to the tall mountain club."
- gozo 11y ago"Who said that was the achievement?" Anyone who understood what was being achieved. That doesn't mean that a single achieve or being first in itself is that meaningful, but it's still an achivement. Just like anyone who understands mountaineering knows that climbing Everest isn't the greatest norvthe hardest achivement among tall mountains i.e. the eight-thousanders.
- sxcurry 11y agoI don't think you understand the big picture. Musk = Good, Everyone Else = Bad. The Musk sycophants are peeing their pants in excitement over this achievement, and you are just not allowed to question any part of it.
- InclinedPlane 11y agohttp://i.imgur.com/g2VIKVC.jpg http://i.imgur.com/g2VIKVC.jpg
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- grey-area 11y agoBO was not trivial, just as grasshopper was not trivial years before, but there is a significant difference. Going up into space can be done in a balloon or plane, but not orbit. The difference is qualitative. F9 will significantly reduce the cost of putting things in orbit. NS will reduce the cost of space tourism (momentary views of earth), but would require new engines and a different design and landing style to put things into space, something like F9. Hence implying they are the same is a bit tacky and inappropriate as it will mislead lots of people.